THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BANKROLLED EVERY FUCKING MUSLIM DICTATOR OF EGYPT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS TO THE TUNE OF BILLIONS!!!
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [the tax for being a Jew or Christian] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Churches in Egypt: Harassed Islands in a Sea of Mosques
Thousands of mosques go up, but woe to the Christian who dares open a church.
3 comments
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article originally appeared on Coptic Solidarity.
According to a May 19, 2021 Arabic-language report, Egypt’s Ministry of Endowments just announced that, since September 2020, 1,413 mosques—1,315 of which are brand new—were opened in the North Africa nation.
This announcement underscores the double standards that Christians and Muslims can expect in Egypt. For inasmuch as mosques proliferate all throughout the nation, building new or even renovating old churches is like pulling teeth for Copts.
According to one detailed study by author Adel Guindy, “there is one church per 5,800 Orthodox Copts”; this forces many Christians “to travel far distances outside of their towns for religious services (baptism, marriage, funerals, and regular mass).” On the other hand, based on the number of mosques in Egypt (114,000 in 2016, more now) and Egypt’s estimated Muslim population, there is about one mosque for every 700 Muslims. In other words, even after balancing out the ratio between Muslims to Christians, there are still about eight mosques for every one church. The discrepancy could not be clearer.
As Coptic Solidarity observed in a 2019 report, “The Egyptian government does not apply a single law equally for the building and repair of mosques, churches, and synagogues.” Indeed, in late 2016—around the time that St. Peter’s Cathedral in Cairo was bombed, killing 25 Coptic worshippers, and as several other churches were being closed by authorities—the Egyptian government again boasted about opening 10 new mosques every week and allotting several billion Egyptian pounds to opening thousands more. Similarly, Al Azhar “the main authority in theology and Islamic affairs,” is entirely subsidized by the government (13 billion Egyptian pounds, USD $726 million, in 2018).
On the other hand, every Christian place of worship in Egypt is supported by its (often impoverished) congregation, with no governmental aid; moreover, “the Egyptian government,” continues the CS report, “has ordered the shuttering of multiple churches in direct contravention of law”; and whereas “the Egyptian government appoints Imams and pays their salaries, Christian and other minority faith leaders receive no government compensation.”
Why such a double standard exists can be traced back to Article 2 of Egypt’s Constitution: “Islam is the religion of the State … The principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation.” As it happens, Islamic Sharia is decidedly hostile to non-Muslim places of worship; strictly interpreted, Sharia forbids the building or renovating of churches in Egypt. Although that law is not strictly enforced, its “spirit”—which breeds hostility for churches amongst Egypt’s rank and file—lives on.
Thus, on those occasions where Christian tenacity overcomes the red tape “jihad,” and a church permit is secured, there’s the Muslim mob to contend with. Once local Muslims get wind that a church might be recognized in their neighborhood, they form in large mobs — typically after Friday prayers, when the imam riles them — riot, attack, and sometimes kill Christians, and torch their homes and/or church in question. Then to diffuse the situation, local authorities, some of whom aid or cover for the mob, promptly revoke the church’s pending permit on the claim that it poses a “security concern” for the village.
“A great deal of Muslim young men, aged 16-26, from our village and nearby gathered in front of our church building, shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and chanting hostile slogans against Copts and the Church, such as ‘We don’t want a church in our Islamic village,’” recalled Moheb, a member of one of the Luxor churches closed. “They tried to break the front door … but we locked [it] from the inside. We immediately called the police who arrived and dispersed the demonstrators but they didn’t arrest anyone. They then closed the church building, sealed it and placed security guards with it.”
Responding to that closure, Gamil Ayed, a local Coptic lawyer, voiced typical Christian sentiment: “We haven’t heard that a mosque was closed down, or that prayer was stopped in it because it was unlicensed. Is that justice? Where is the equality? Where is the religious freedom? Where is the law? Where are the state institutions?”
Two months before those eight churches were closed, another nearby church was shut down under identical circumstances. “There are about 4,000 Christians in our village and we have no place to worship now,” responded a local resident, Rafaat Fawzy. “The nearest church is … 15km [or nine miles] away. It is difficult to go and pray in that church, especially for the old, the sick people and kids.”
He too continued by asking the same questions on the minds of millions of Christians in Egypt: “Where are our rights? There are seven mosques in our village and Muslims can pray in any place freely, but we are prevented from practicing our religious rites in a simple place that we have been dreaming of. Is that justice? We are oppressed in our country and there are no rights for us.”
A few days after the Luxor church closings, Muslims assaulted Christians in al-Minya because they “objected to the presence of a church in the area”; three Christians were hospitalized.
All of these attacks took place, it bears mentioning, two years after Egypt’s much touted “church law,” which passed in 2016 and was meant to ease restrictions on churches, but which, in fact, “discriminates against the Christian minority in Egypt,” to quote Human Rights Watch.
The many difficulties Egypt’s Christians encounter in the context of church worship is just one of several violations against their human rights. Whether their daughters are targeted for abduction and forced conversion and marriage, or whether they are arrested and imprisoned on the accusation that they mocked Islam, or whether they must be demonized and hated thanks to the teachings of often government-connected mosques and universities, Christians simply do not share in the same human rights that Muslims do in Egypt.
Raymond Ibrahim Interview: Truth About Islam Must Be Acknowledged
How an ideology's teachings are antithetical to Western values.
Fri Sep 11, 2020
Note: Journalist Niram Ferretti interviews Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center, for the Italian publication, L’Informale (original here). Pasted below are excerpts from the English version.
Question: How much is the concept of jihad intended as holy war, central to the way Islam has interpreted itself during the centuries?
The concept of jihad was central from the start—at least according to the earliest Muslim historians who often portray the first warriors of Allah as being zealously motivated by the notion of jihad.
Question: The last time that Islam tried to penetrate Europe through war was on the 12th of September 1683 at Kalhenberg, near Vienna, where 65.000 thousand Christians fought against 200,000 Ottoman Turks. For how long after that date did jihad against the West stopped and when and why was it resumed?
Raids continued for some time, particularly by sea, and well into the late 1700s, meaning for about a century after the successful defense of Vienna. Even as the Ottoman Empire was beginning its slow retreat from eastern Europe, the Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa wreaked havoc all along the coasts of Europe—even as far as Iceland. The United States of America’s first war—which it fought before it could even elect its first president—was against these Islamic slavers. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that … it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners….”
Question: In his seminal book of 1996, Samuel P. Huntington wrote about Islam and the West the following sentence, “Kto? Kovo? Who is to rule? Who is to be ruled? The central issue of politics defined by Lenin is the root of the contest between Islam and the West”. Do you agree?
Yes, inasmuch as that Muslims must always work to make Islam rule over non-Muslims, based on their sharia, which while allowing for truces and times of peace—particularly when Islam is weak vis-à-vis infidels—also sees the spread of Muslim rule as the culmination of the Islamic mission that began in the early 630s.
Question: Let us now talk about your new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. What has brought you to write a book focused specifically on the battles which have occurred along the centuries between Islam and the West?
Yes, as indicated by the title, the book is a military history between Islam and the West, narrated around their eight most decisive clashes, the first and last of which occurred more than a millennium apart. But while the eight battles/sieges form the centerpieces of the book’s eight chapters, the bulk of the narrative chronologically traces and tells the general, but much forgotten story of Islam and the West, most of which of course revolved around warfare—with all the attendant death, destruction, slavery, and geopolitical demarcations and map rearrangements. We can say I began working on portions of this book some twenty years ago—since around 1998-99, when I first started doing academic research for what became my MA thesis in History: a close examination, including through the original Arabic and Greek sources, of the battle of Yarmuk—the first major military encounter between Islam and the Eastern Roman Empire in 636, highlighted in Chapter 1 of the Sword and Scimitar.
Question: To what extent is the Islamic terrorism that we are facing today a continuation of the battles between Islam and the West that you describe in Sword and Scimitar?
To a very great extent. Both the motivation and the pattern of terrorist acts are very much mirror reflections of past Islamic motivations and patterns. In other words, from the start to finish, the book pages are full of all the ugly words and deeds committed by modern groups such as the Islamic State—ordering Europeans to convert to Islam or face the sword; the willful destruction of churches; the mass slaughter—including by beheading, crucifixion, or burning—of Christian defenders, and the mass enslavement and rape of Christian women and children—all of these permeate the pages of my book.
Question: Islam is a way of life. It is a complete set of ideas and rules which differs deeply from our Western values. Is there any chance of an accommodation between Islam and Western societies or this is just wishful thinking?
Can water and oil mix? In the same manner, pure Islamic teachings and pure Western values are often antithetical to one another. For example, the West believes in freedom of religion, whereas in Islam those who seek to apostatize are penalized, including by death; the West believes in freedom of speech, whereas in Islam any critical talk concerning Muhammad can get one killed. One can go on and on but the point should be clear. Of course, a nominal/secular Muslim may be able to assimilate in a Western society, but that is not a reflection of Islam, which is hardly nominal but rather a full way of life based on sharia.
Question: According to you what are the ways in which Europe on one side and the United States on the other should face the reality of Islam in such a manner that could be helpful both for Westerners and Muslims? What are the false assumptions that must be rejected?
First, the truth must be acknowledged—including for example the truth that, for well over a millennium, Muslims invaded European/Christian territory on the same logic that Islamic terror groups cite—that it is their right to invade, conquer, butcher, and enslave infidels for no less a reason that because they are non-Muslims. If this is how Muslims have been behaving for centuries, is there really any need to find “reasons” why some of them are behaving so now? Are grievances, territorial disputes, etc., necessary to explain this unwavering hostility? Once these facts are embraced, the rest, including policy—for instance, the question of Muslim immigration—should become self-evident.
Question: How inbred is religious violence in Islam and how it differs from the way in which it is presented in the Bible and has accompanied Christianity in the course of its history?
Many apologist for Islam like to claim that the Bible, especially the Jewish scriptures (or the Old Testament), is just as if not more bloody and violent than the Koran—so why do we insist that Muslim violence is rooted to Muslim scriptures? The problem with comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Koran is that it conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Koran is doctrinally significant. The Koran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tired apologia.
Vox Jorno Unclear What's Behind Antisemitic Attacks by Muslims Waving PLO Flags
America has the worst media in the world. And Vox is the worst media of any outlet except for the New York Times.
But Zack Beauchamp is the one leading figure in lefty digital media that not even the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CNN wanted.
Why? Well there was the time he claimed that there was some sort of giant bridge between the West Bank and Gaza. That led to this unforgettable correction in Beauchamp's Vox explainer, "11 crucial facts to understand the Israel-Gaza crisis"
"An earlier version of this post suggested there was a bridge connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Various plans to do this have been floated, but the bridge was never actually built."
There were also various plans floated to build a canal separating America from Mexico, to overthrow the United States, and to blow up the moon.
"An earlier version of this post suggested the moon had been blown up. Various plans to do this have been floated, but the moon was never actually blown up."
Now Zack turned his laser acumen to the bafflingly inexplicable crisis of antisemitism.
These attacks appear to be linked to the recent flare-up in fighting between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas. In some cases, the perpetrators waved Palestinian flags or shouted pro-Palestinian slogans...
What’s less clear is why these incidents are happening.
If you think this is beyond stupid, Zack is just getting started.
It’s also possible that the anti-Semitic attacks are part of the generalized surge in American anti-Semitism since 2016, which most experts link to the rise of Donald Trump and the alt-right movement.
As a writer who believes in the power of reason, I hate to say this, but the only rational response to Zack Beauchamp writing about Israel (or any Vox explainer) is a headdesk.gif spammed non-stop.
It's like listening to AOC talk about economics or a dog bark at a tree.
Zack Beauchamp then cites Jewish Currents' insistence that the surge in antisemitism was made up by the ADL. He doesn't bother to mention to his audience that JC is a rabidly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish site that originated in the Communist Party.
In LA, the attackers — who drove to a specifically Jewish neighborhood to find Jews to hurt — were flying Palestinian flags. In Times Square, the violence grew out of a pro-Palestinian protest. In Florida, the attackers yelled, “‘Free Palestine, fuck you Jew, die Jew.”
This isn’t normal. Something new appears to be happening, but it’s not yet clear what it is.
It's a mystery. We're gonna need to dig into it some more to figure out what's going on here.
But the fact that some of these incidents seem directly tied to pro-Palestinian events and sentiment, with little or no connection to the far-right factions that traditionally commit the most serious anti-Semitic violence in the United States, presents troubling data points. It’s possible, if not likely, that the European pattern of violence in Israel causing anti-Semitic violence at home could become a reality in America.
It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a media cover-up.
No comments:
Post a Comment